ABDUL WAHAB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No.286 of 2017 on the file of the Tirunelveli Junction Police Station, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District and quash the same.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 25/4/2017, at about 10.30 a.m., during the time of patrol at the Junction, the petitioner, who is District Secretary of the DMK party, along with 372 persons, including 11 women, conducted protest against the Central Government in support of the agriculture and farmers, without getting prior permission from the concerned authority. They were obstructing the free flow of people in that area. In order to ensure, free movement of people, they were arrested and a case was registered by the respondent police in Crime No.286 of 2017 for the offences under Ss. 341, 143 and 188 IPC.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the other accused are falsely implicated in this case for political reason as a political vendetta. In order to draw the attention of the Central Government, the petitioner along with several others had protested in support of the farmers. The learned counsel further submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the right to assemble and to freely express once view is a constitutionally protected right under Part III. He further submitted that it is the duty of the Government to protect the right of freedom of speech and assemble which is essential character of democracy. According to Sec. 195(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., no Court can take cognizance of an offence under Sec. 188 of IPC, unless the public servant has written order from the authority. Further submitted that the petitioner or any other members had never involved in any unlawful assembly and there is no evidence that the petitioner or others restrained anybody. When there several members participated in the protest, the respondent police registered this case, under Sec. 341, 143 and 188 of IPC as against the petitioner and few others. Therefore, he sought for quashing the proceeding.